1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (except for the part concerning the conclusion of the judgment) except for the part which is determined additionally below, thereby citing it pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination of the unconstitutionality of Article 42(1) of the Pension for Private School Teachers and Staff Act

A. Article 64(1)1 of the Public Officials Pension Act applicable mutatis mutandis to the part concerning the Plaintiff’s assertion for reduction of part of retirement benefits and retirement allowances to “the case where imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment has become final and conclusive as an intentional crime unrelated to his/her duties” under the main sentence of Article 42(1) of the Pension for Private School Teachers and Staff Act (hereinafter “instant legal provision”). This is the property rights and human rights

It shall not be applied to this case because it infringes on the right to a life and violates the principle of equality.

B. In the Constitutional Court Decision 2013HunBa170 Decided September 26, 2013, the Constitutional Court rendered the following decisions with respect to the legal provisions of this case.

Article 64(1)1 of the former Public Officials Pension Act (amended by Act No. 9905 of Dec. 31, 2009) (amended by Act No. 9905 of Dec. 31, 2009) rendered a ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution to the effect that Article 64(1)1 of the former Public Officials Pension Act infringes on the basic rights of retired public officials as a ground for reduction of retirement benefits, and that Article 208Hun-Ga15 of the former Public Officials Pension Act (amended by Act No. 9908 of Dec. 31, 2009) applied mutatis mutandis the former Public Officials Pension Act to the same purport.

The legal provision of this case is an improvement legislative person, and even if it is not related to the teacher's duties, in the case of intentional crimes, the duty to observe the law of the teacher and to integrity.